Ralph Dumain vs. Religious Art
December 21st, 2007 by Menachem Wecker
Ralph Dumain of Reason & Society posts a very impolite response to my article The Atheist and the Crucifix in Relevant Magazine.
Not only does Dumain, whose profile indicates he works in the library or museum world and maintains a website called the Autodidact Project, consistently misspell my name, but he writes, “I received an email from Mr. Wanker out of the blue asking if I wanted to discuss this further. In turn, I asked him: what is there to discuss? Never heard from him again.” This is of course true. I sent interview questions to the folks I contacted who said they’d be glad to take questions. I was swamped, and Dumain’s response did not seem inviting.
Little did I know that he’d later write this about my site:
I found this entire web site sickening, not surprisingly, but I wasn’t about to devote a lot of thought to it. However, certain parallels to this scenario surfaced from time to time and it occurred to me at those times that I will have to return to this theme.
The post is worth reading in full (at very least to expose yourself to arrogant writing that makes plenty of assumptions and mistakes), but I will only quote a few parts here. Dumain writes,
The idea that a person would be interested in specifically religious art in the contemporary world rubs me the wrong way, just the stomach-churning feeling I would get from contemplating the notion of ‘Christian rock’, or Christian music as a pop music form. It’s not that I would not appreciate the religious artistic products of the past, but there is something contrived and dishonest or just plain tacky about this sort of thing in the present.
Dumain can’t be held completely accountable for this nonsense, since it’s such a hackneyed denouncement of religious art at this point, and he is in good company. That being said, I’d pose the question to Dumain: What is it exactly about an artist deciding to include religious themes or content in her or his work that makes it “contrived,” “dishonest” and “tacky”? I posit that there is no difference between opting to include religion and between choosing to make art to begin with. Surely there is something contrived and tacky about choosing to make art. Why not write a book instead or watch TV? Yet, I’ve found it’s generally best to examine the individual works rather than judge the entire medium.
Dumain generously allows for important religious art in the past, but then suggests that a truly creative person (whatever that means)
would not express himself in the same fashion at every point in time and space, but would push the envelope given the tools and information at hand in any given cultural environment. So the question is not who is capable of admiring the artistic products of the past, but what are the needs of the present, and given what we know now, how would we best express ourselves now?”
So according to Dumain, we know in hindsight that certain religious art of the past (say the Sistine Chapel) is still considered today, so it must have been ahead of its time. Yet, somehow Dumain knows the religious art of today is kitschy and so terribly of its time. Sounds like we would have to hold off on passing judgment for a few centuries.
“I could conceivably transmit this message to Mr. Wanker, but there’s nothing in it for me.”
Don’t worry. I found it.